(June 12, 2013 at 4:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There seem to have been very few theists around at the time, and the challenges were good if dogmatic.
Seriously? The "challenges" at the time were riddled with logical fallacies.
I give John V some credit here. I glanced over his response and no fallacies leap out at me. I'll be reviewing them in more detail momentarily and to avoid a "necropost" I'll be posting my response here.
Quote:Your claim to infallibility seems rich, More no one really have it much attention. I think deservedly.I've never claimed infallibility. I've simply claimed to have debunked this argument. No Christian at the time could offer anything to bolster this collapsing argument that wasn't soaking in blatant logical fallacies.
Quote:And what about forceful theists here on this tolerant site? A measure of your mettle would be to present your case in a way that your opponent would find reasonable. That's what theists do here. Are you not up to that?
There is no way to be gentle with theists as they will always find a way to play the "hurt feelings" card. It's hard to avoid when my very existence as a skeptic to their religion is offensive to so many of them. Then if you make any arguments against the validity of their faith, they call it "bashing Christianity" and the banhammer comes down.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist